What’s up with all this sick French Open fascination?

[dudero]

Who’s currently the best male player in world? (I’ll give you a hint – it’s Roger Federer). Who was the best player before Federer? Pete Sampras. They have combined for 0 French Open final appearances while winning at least 2 of each of other grand slams. And for some reason I don’t think it’s coincidence. Let’s face it – clay court tennis is about endurance, not about skill. If you enjoy watching 5 hours of Montilla vs. Montanes – fine, it’s your prerogative. But enough crying already that Sampras, Federer, MCcenroe, Connors not winning French open is something negative – I have even more respect for them since they never did win Fraud Open.

[norcal]

Originally Posted by dudero

But enough crying already that Sampras, Federer, MCcenroe, Connors not winning French open is something negative – I have even more respect for them since they never did win Fraud Open.

I've read a lot of strange stuff on this board and that statement ranks right up there.

[VGP]

Man, what a troll sounding post.

Winning Roland Garros is quite the accomplishment. Hats off to those that have done it more than once.

dudero - do you just turn a blind eye when the players hit the dirt?

[ezdude1970]

I agree with Dudero’s post. For me watching the Dirt Open matches it is like staring at the pendulum for 5 hours straight, don’t get me wrong, it might be more exciting than just staring at the wall, but I could find couple other things to do to occupy my time. It is just unfortunate that the dirt season lasts for the agonizing 5 month, and we have to suffer thru praises to yet another Sancho Panzo that came out of nowhere and now is the greatest thing since slice bread. Wake me up the week before the Wimbledon when the real tennis begins!

[VGP]

Originally Posted by ezdude1970

...we have to suffer thru praises to yet another Sancho Panzo that came out of nowhere and now is the greatest thing since slice bread...

Is that a racist comment?

[norcal]

Originally Posted by VGP

Is that a racist comment?

I think Sancho Panzo is a character from the book Don Quixote.

[Galactus]

I kind of agree...and I don't.
True, watching cklay-court tennis can get rather dull but you have to face facts: is it one the most common surfaces in the world.
For me, the last true al'-round tennis players to 'own' Rolland Garros were Mats Wilander and Ivan Lendl in the 80s.
Forget Kuerten and Brugera: they didn't do s*h*t on any other surface, bar clay.

[Ronaldo]

Dud, like it or don't, you best learn to love dirt/slow surfaces. Your fast court season lasts about 8-10 weeks now.

[Colpo]

I think you're wrong about the French. It's a great event, it's a Slam, and it's in a showcase world city (uh, Paris). Unlike the Australian Open, the French has never had a 'down' period, although it is and has been generally regarded as the 3rd of the 4 Slams. Clay court tennis, in this power laden age, is very entertaining to watch because the points have to be developed and they're easier to follow strategy-wise (anybody see either of Acasuso's sf or f victories in Chile last weekend? - that's balling!). Finally, it would be an extraordinary accomplishment for Federer to add this title to his list, because it's probably his least best surface and because it's the favorite surface of so many other players. I admire Roger's goal and am looking forward to see how the spring develops.

[Shaolin]

Clay is an important surface throughout the world. Its possible that the majority of tennis worldwide is played on clay. If youre going to complain about something, complain about grass. The grass court season=1 month and 4 tournaments. And our most prestigious major is played on it. Thats a joke.

[jgunnink]

I'll be tuning in to see if Roger can pull it off. If he does, he clearly distinguishes himself from Sampras et. al. as the consummate all-surface player.

When was the last time we had one of those? Agassi's the only man in recent history to do a career slam.

Roger almost did it last year. I felt Nadal caught him on an off day and it was still a 5 setter. I think it's exciting.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Colpo

I think you're wrong about the French. It's a great event, it's a Slam, and it's in a showcase world city (uh, Paris). Unlike the Australian Open, the French has never had a 'down' period, although it is and has been generally regarded as the 3rd of the 4 Slams. Clay court tennis, in this power laden age, is very entertaining to watch because the points have to be developed and they're easier to follow strategy-wise (anybody see either of Acasuso's sf or f victories in Chile last weekend? - that's balling!). Finally, it would be an extraordinary accomplishment for Federer to add this title to his list, because it's probably his least best surface and because it's the favorite surface of so many other players. I admire Roger's goal and am looking forward to see how the spring develops.

So why can't clay-courters do jack-sh!t on hard-court, grass or carpet?

[spinbalz]

Originally Posted by Galactus

For me, the last true al'-round tennis players to 'own' Rolland Garros were Mats Wilander and Ivan Lendl in the 80s.
Forget Kuerten and Brugera: they didn't do s*h*t on any other surface, bar clay.

Don't you remember Agassi?

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by spinbalz

Don't you remember Agassi?

Yeah - he had ONE win against a guy who got to ONE final in his entire career. Even worse, that guy couldnt shut Agassi out at 2 sets up.

Both Wilander and Lendl won Garros 3 times each.

[Kaptain Karl]

I (partially) agree with the OP.

When the French Open is on TV, I get lots more done than with any other Slam event. Because I mostly *listen* to the French and get my work done. I listen for the announcers to get excited about a particular point and watch the (usually abbreviated ... Yea!) replay of that point.

I love most clay events. I don't like the "clay" they use in Roland Garros. It is not just too slow; it's BORING.

Har-Tru and Rubico (the American green clays) are my favorite surfaces of all....

- KK

[Rataplan]

Originally Posted by jgunnink

it was still a 5 setter. I think it's exciting.

Nope, it was a 4 setter

[spinbalz]

Originally Posted by Galactus

Yeah - he had ONE win against a guy who got to ONE final in his entire career. Even worse, that guy couldnt shut Agassi out at 2 sets up.

No, he had 1 win against the rest of the ATP field composed of the 128 best players of the moment, like every other winner of every other Slam event, it doesn't take a genius to be able to understand that!

And you can add 2 FO finals for Agassi, which says much about his ability to compete on clay.

[VGP]

Originally Posted by spinbalz

No, he had 1 win against the rest of the ATP field composed of the 128 best players of the moment, like every other winner of every other Slam event, it doesn't take a genius to be able to understand that!

And you can add 2 FO finals for Agassi, which says much about his ability to compete on clay.

Yup. I agree with spinbalz.

Chang broke the "no USA man since Trabert" curse.

Do I sense the start of the "no USA man since Agassi"......?


Perhaps the OP has something against the French?

[yo_3133]

Originally Posted by norcal

I've read a lot of strange stuff on this board and that statement ranks right up there.

i agree, fed can win in clay, and if you're good enough to be the best ever you must be able to win in all sorts of courts

[Phil]

Originally Posted by dudero

Who’s currently the best male player in world? (I’ll give you a hint – it’s Roger Federer). Who was the best player before Federer? Pete Sampras. They have combined for 0 French Open final appearances while winning at least 2 of each of other grand slams. And for some reason I don’t think it’s coincidence. Let’s face it – clay court tennis is about endurance, not about skill. If you enjoy watching 5 hours of Montilla vs. Montanes – fine, it’s your prerogative. But enough crying already that Sampras, Federer, MCcenroe, Connors not winning French open is something negative – I have even more respect for them since they never did win Fraud Open.

I don't have more respect for Sampras, Fed, etc. for NOT winning RG, and would certainly have more respect if they HAD won it. Otherwise, I agree with the rest of this post.

RG is one of the Majors and it is a big part of professional tennis, but it truely does bring out the one-dimensional no-names who seem to, amazingly, disappear completely after RG. But...this subject has been debated ad naseum on this Board!